♪ host: it is the washington journal for december 27. when it comes to rhetoric, how comfortable are you with that rhetoric contains profanity and insults? an associated press article looks at course language. they former governor of indiana recently penned an opinion piece about his concerns of profanity becoming commonplace in political dialogue. to start tell us if it is a big

deal for politicians use profanity and insults. for the eastern and central time zones, it is (202) 748-8000. for the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. for texts, (202) 748-8003. you can also post on our social media sites. facebook.com/cspan. and on x at @cspanwj. , also the former president of purdue university pending an op-ed looking at this idea of profanity used by politicians. public norms have been warped. is the damage permanent? mitch daniel writes, "there is some small fraction of americans somehow elected to public office who prosper from and presumably

revel in the century's rapid collapse of long-standing norms in the public square. standards of conduct and discourse have shifted unmistakably and radically downward. the large majority of the country spanning the ideological spectrum minus its fevered edges have seen weary and discouraged. we encourage the hope of the decadence is temporary but we must accept that in many respects it is likely here to stay." mitch daniels going on to write, "when it comes to the idea profanity, profanity is suddenly mainstream. once unacceptable words, specifically the ones i'm thinking of are everywhere from comedian to could not get left without them to politicians who must think it makes them look tough. it is now affecting our proudest and most daily publications. one might wish that once the vulgar becomes commonplace society will ever rule out -- rule it out of bounds.

personal demonization may have ratcheted downward. on this score one can imagine some recovery. at some point the public attire of flagrant insults and asinine nicknames and start asking for a little more substance from those elected to serve them. the stalemate in the country entering's serious economic or national security difficulty could trigger a collected demand to "grow up." that is the former governor of indiana mitch daniels. he served as president emeritus of pretty university. on the idea of profanity and insults becoming part of political rhetoric. we want to ask you to start of the program if you think it is a big deal. here's how you can let us know your thoughts. it is (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones, it is (202) 748-8001.

you can text at your thoughts to (202) 748-8003. if you want to post on social media, you have options to do that. on our facebook page. several of you posted at facebook.com/cspan. you can post on x at @cspanwj. buffalo, new york. anthony, what do you think about this idea profanity and insults as political rhetoric? caller: the president of the united states is constantly calling women reporters piggy. he told the lady she asked the question from abc tv that she was stupid. he consistently uses -- abuses the english language to the point where i don't want to listen to him anymore. we can't put sentences together

either. it is totally unbecoming of a president. it is disgusting. host: the idea of it becoming unbecoming, what you think that is? caller: could you repeat the question? host: when it comes to profanity and insults, why do you think it is unbecoming for a president or politician to use that rhetoric? caller: because the english language was never meant to be used in that fashion. for a president to consistently use -- especially women. have you noticed how many times he has criticized a woman reporter for asking the question? calling them stupid, that they have no character, calling them miss piggy, etc. this is not acceptable language. you don't see that from a real president.

this president does not use english properly. it is terrible. host: let's hear from susan in pennsylvania on this idea of profanity and insults as part of political rhetoric. caller: good morning, pedro. i want to tell everybody that profanity is not fcts. insults are not fax. i'm a democrat. when people get on tv and say democrats are communists, etc., all that does is tell me they don't have anything valid to say. if i express an opinion and give facts and they start calling me names, all that does is tell me i have won the argument. what i'm saying has more validity than anything they say. the more adjectives a person uses, insults, that tells me i

have won the argument. they don't have anything intelligent or valid to say. thank you. host: that is susan in pennsylvania. the associated press article i referenced talks and gives historical context. "recording should lyndon b. johnson's administration revealed a crude, profane side of his personality that was largely cap private. richard nixon moaned the fact the foul language used in the oval office was captured on tape, "since neither i nor other presidents had ever use profanity in public millions were shocked," former president nixon wrote in his book. "politicians of always sworn, just behind closed doors," says a university at the university of california san diego department of cognitive science and author of "what the f."

the big changes in the past 10 years or so. it has been much more public." that's from the associated press if you want to give a thought or at least read that to give your thoughts as well on this idea of profanity or insults being part of regular political rhetoric. (202) 748-8000 in the eastern and central time zone. (202) 748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones. this is from russell. russell and idaho. -- in idaho. what do you think? caller: i think it is incredibly insulting for our president to speak vulgar speech. we all say vulgar words but i think it is very insulting to the public for the people in power to say words like the s word and f word.

i don't like that. we are incredibly intelligent people. we don't need to resort to that. we can get our ideas with things that help the human population, the american people. host: you said everybody uses this kind of language. politicians shouldn't use that kind of language. why should they be exempt specifically? caller: if they going to be in the public eye. i don't need to go there. i can speak will garrity all day if it is a public figure, a public servant, you don't -- host: are you still there? i think russell's connection is

bad. another idahoan.this is from paul. thank you for calling. go ahead. caller: i would say it matters what the situation is. if it's anger and profanity, it can be quite shocking. if it is anger without profanity, it can be forceful. when it is trying to make a point that you want to get across to everybody in the room, usually if i have to do that i use it as a double exclamation point so people understand i mean business. just using it for the use -- being able to use it, it serves a purpose in certain professions. when i heard trump use the f bomb about six months ago when

he was questioned outside by the helicopter it was not shocking but i never wanted to experience that in the first place. when i heard it, it made good sense to what he was referring to. i think it can be unbecoming, if that is what you are looking for. if you are never around people that use profanity, you will be shocked. that is the point. it serves a purpose at times. like i say with a double exclamation point. i don't have a problem with the president or somebody in congress using it. if they weren't shouting it into the microphone that would be helpful but it does go over the airwaves i will not lose sleep over it.

host: thank you for the call. this is greg off of facebook saying, "embracing profanity while promoting christian family values, the hypocrisy is the issue. this is amy from facebook saying, "no issue with occasional profanity but the middle school insults are beneath the office of the president and prove his lack of intellect." tim says, "it's nice to have a president talks like the rest of us. who have to get up every morning and put their boots on before they go to work." facebook available to you and x. text us at (202) 748-8003. in minnesota, this is from alexa in st. paul on the idea profanity and insults part of political rhetoric. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you. i was in the navy for six years and there is talk like that constantly. i resisted it. i never adopted that type of language. i always taught my children that if they use language like that, they will be in big trouble. i immediately correct them. now i have noticed it is just our culture. it is widespread. you can't even listen to a person speak without them interjecting all this nasty language. about six months ago, maybe a year, i was listening to the pbs news hour. it was a piece about academic censorship of some sort.

it was a professor, a yale law professor being interviewed and he was using a lot of bad language. it just seems like nobody can keep their language clean. nobody should have to talk like that to make their point. if they do talk like that, it is called an ad hominem attack -- ad hoc attack. that is a logical fallacy. host: do you think politicians should be held to a higher standard than? caller: yes, absolutely. i hope they can be reversed by having this discussion. host: alexa in minnesota giving her thoughts on this. bartholomew in washington state. hello. caller: good morning. i disagree on the political

rhetoric when there is a lot of foul language or any of that elementary kid sandbox talk and yelling and belittling or using vulgar language to intimidate anybody in the arena of the political spectrum. i think what donald trump has done in this political arena with his mouth has infested nothing but negativity in the past gop republican party. i think it is terrible. i believe as a democrat that there needs to be two parties with two political objectives in an arena that can balance each other out with debate.

i remember when i was a kid growing up. they had to be teams and they taught you how to speak proper debate without using foul language in a public arena. it reminds me growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, that base of how to speak publicly in a public debate. now in a public arena up to the 2000's and beyond donald trump has made the public arena for both parties just infested with negativity. it is infesting with racism on the public spectrum because of that. it reminds me of how the kkk and all the kids growing up with parents back in the 1960's and 1970's, it was ok for them to

walk around then the white hooded keeps. host: that is bartholomew. the associated press article takes a history of this type of language going back to 2010. vice president joe biden talking about the ceremony for the affordable care act. saying the event was a big -- he uses an expletive -- big deal. president trump talking about in recent days disparaging haiti and african nations, using an expletive there. it goes to the current vice president jd vance. calling a podcast host an expletive. you can read these later on. kamala harris among the democrats, former presidential candidate condemning the trump administration using expletives to describe the trumpet administration and taking a look at how this type of language

used by both parties over the years. you can highlight those as far as your comments are concerned. let's go to sandra in virginia, waynesboro. caller: i was thinking back to when i was a child and our grandmother washed our teeth with soap if we call each other stupid or dumbbell. she said that was -- if you have a point to make, you can make it without cussing at your brother. if you have no point, shut up and don't say anything. we can apply that same thing the politicians. if they have apoint to make , lifting us up towards a goal that this country was supposedly founded on, the liberation of people, the elevation of people as the point of governance. if we have that, some noble thing to lift up, we don't need

to lace it with profanity. if we have no point to make and we just want to make people pay attention to us and show what big people we are, we run around inserting a few tough words so we are just as tough as the other guy. it doesn't make me think anyone is tougher or smarter or better. it makes me think they are little mind it and have nothing much to say to me. when i hear somebody use that kind of language, i turned the tv to something more elevating to watch. maybe something on pbs or bbc. i do not listen to people who insist on using language that draws us downward, that makes us lesser, that makes us sound like we are sliding backwards down the whatever you call it we are on as far as people. people go upwards.

they elevate. they go forward. if you go backwards using playground language, as far as i'm concerned that is something i don't want to participate in. host: sandra giving us her thoughts. you are the thoughts of mitch daniels previously on our program. we have the president and cofounder of real clear politics on the show and he responded to this idea of course language and rhetoric to comments made by the former president of purdue university mitch daniels. here is some of that from a recent program. [video] >> profanity has existed in politics but it's always been more private. we saw that and have seen that with if you read histories and biographies, plenty of presidents were very profane. they just did not do it in public. it has seeped into our public discourse, particularly over the last two years.

donald trump has just thrown so many wrenches into our system. democrats would argue he's the one this lowered the standards. certainly trump has cursed in public more than i think most presidents. democrats' response has been to curse at donald trump, because their base wants to see them fight. they want to see this sense of outrage and indignity against donald trump. that has led people to curse. we have seen that.kamala harris on her book tour has done that repeatedly in public. it is a problem. i understand his point. it is a crossing of a line that perhaps we are never going to go back into that. social media has contributed to that as well. we managed to say things online to people, terrible things that

we would never say to someone's face. that has become a part of our discourse to see that kind of language used online. i totally get his point. i'm not sure that is a gene that can put t -- genie that can be put back in the bottle. host: the use of profanity and insults. "what has changed is almost everywhere is entered recorded by someone. social media is a huge factor in the instant communication and instant gratification age." barb from illinois. "the use of profanity and insults by politicians needs to be curtailed and has no place in politics at this time." sandra -- let's hear from joy in chicago. go ahead please. caller: good morning pedro. profanity is like a fruit.

we call it a fruit. the fruit that people bear. i grew up in a parochial school. the nuns taught that profanity spilled out when they were giving exorcisms. i believe when profanity is used the energy ships. it becomes -- shifts. to become very dark. i don't care who it is. i consider the president is like the pied piper. peak is leading things -- he is leading people into dark places. when people are cussing and swearing it just shifts the energy. we were not allowed to curse when i was a child. i don't like people who do it. i think it is way too commonplace. host: joy in chicago. lelah in texas.

you next up. caller: thank you for having me. i am a retired schoolteacher who wants all the kids to listen to people running for office and to know them. my father and mother did not curse. i don't like to hear any curse words on tv. they use the d word often. i think people holding office -- i don't want them to think it's all right to curse in public and do things like that. that is my reason. thank you so much for having me. host: there was a recent poll looking at the idea of rhetoric overall. aside from profanity and insults but this is what people had to say about the idea of going too far with rhetoric. it was from october.

when it comes to this idea, 69% said that the parties have gone too far when it comes to rhetoric. 60% believes it applies to the democratic party. when it comes to the video parties going too far with rhetoric. rhetoric is what we are talking about but specifically the idea of profanity and insults as part of that rhetoric. is it a big deal? you can give us the answers on the phone lines. you can text us. some of you posting on social media sites. anne in ohio. caller: good morning. i believe politicians should be held to the same expectations as our teachers. as a teacher i am expected to be professional and dignified in the classroom and when i'm out in public. when i'm not teaching. if your child's teacher acted

like the classless president, would you tolerate that behavior from your tyler posey teacher? -- child's teacher? what if your child said their teacher told him to shut up, piggy? host: ryan in massachusetts. good morning. go ahead. caller: hi. i have seen the topic on television this morning. nobody is actually talking about how we try to use political correctness in our society to try to reduce speech, and that includes politicians. i have been shut down by local government, by colleges, and now by the washington establishment tries to restrict trump on his speech. give me a break. what happens in this country is trump is a breath of fresh air. what he does is he calls out politicians for their retarded policies. they can't handle it.

he keeps winning on every issue and it drives them insane. the reality is he is talking the truth on the border, talking the truth about immigration, talking the truth about the transgender issue. host: in talking about this, does profanity and insults have to be part of that? caller: well, the thing is either we have free speech in this country including speech you don't like or not at all. if you are offended, offer an argument. it is like these people on social media. they try to justify blocking you on everything and then they will lecture you about free speech. same thing with local government and professors in colleges. i have experienced it myself. just because people can't handle a little bit of off-the-cuff speech, give me a break. host: ray in arizona, you next

up. caller: we have come a long way. my grandfather and grandmother had a cuss box. whenever grandpa cussed he had to put a quarter in the cussed box. i don't know what to do about the president. people in congress are using vulgar language in the well. it has gone way too far. if you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, you are not going to get my blood. host: does that include all profanity? is there a line to be drawn in your mind? caller: you can use it to accent your speech but a hell or a

damn. really vulgar things like the f word, no. that does not belong. it doesn't belong in the political arena. host: this is from a recent -- it was back and may that forbes published this article about the idea of profanity and its use. "polls taken of the is revealed a pattern. social norms may change but a substantial number of americans don't like to hear profanity. in a 1995 question, 72% said it would bother them to hear an adult regularly curse or you swear words in conversation, while a quarter said it would not. in 2010, 30 5% told cbs news they were bothered a lot -- 35% told cbs news that they were bothered a lot. 23% were not bothered at all. in a 2022 harrisx news poll, 26%

of 18 to 34-year-old compared to 68% of those 65 and older cursing bothered them a lot or some. in a 2024 pew poll, 38% say cursing out loud in public was never acceptable. that is from may. we are asking about the idea of profanity and insults being part of political rhetoric. do you think it is a big deal or not? (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zone. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. (202) 748-8003 if you want to send a text and your thoughts on the matter. larry is in nebraska. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say it works both ways. a lot of democrats are calling and saying trump using bad words

are the biggest hypocrites in the world. for the last 30, 40 years the democrats and the media have called me a racist, a bigot, a homophobe. all kinds of nasty names. nazi lately. a bunch of names. when it comes to that, let's look at it this way. you would not go out to a black man and call him the n word. why would you call someone a racis and not to -- and white supremacist? it is not good. i think a lot of times a racist is somebody who wants to kill you or hurt you. host: back to the idea of profanity, is it acceptable never buy a politician? in some cases? how would you define that?

caller: i think in certain cases it's ok to be too slip in a word once in a while. you have to realize it is the same as bearing false witness against people, calling them nazis and dictators and racists. a racist wants to hurt you or kill you. a racist is not somebody you disagree with. just because you disagree does not make them a racist. host: ok. aaron in georgia, you are next up. caller: hello. my point on the profanity is that it is a moral and ethical -- for the leader of a country to do this, he sets the code for the nation.

he represents the nation. with donald trump it was a departure from civility. when you look at president obama, i think donald trump came in and he could not match that. as far as the racism and fascism, those are two different things. we are talking about profanity. when you talk about somebody being a racist or fascist, you can look it up. civil discourse is always a part of the government. when you have a president that calls out the country them names, it is very divisive. that is my feeling. host: it was back earlier this month at a cabinet meeting the president referring to the somali immigrants, using a name to describe those people. here is a portion of that from

earlier this month. [video] >> somalia, which is barely a country. they have no anything. they just run around killing each other. there is no structure. when i see somebody like bill and omar, who i don't know. i have watched or complained about our constitution. how she is being treated badly. the united states of america is a bad place. hates everybody. hates jewish people. hates everybody. i think she is an incompetent person. she is a real terrible person. when i watch what is happening in minnesota, the land of a thousand likes, however many like they have -- they have a lot of lakes. this beautiful place. i see these people ripping it off. now i'm understanding and you will look to this -- i hear they ripped off somalians ripped off

the state for billions of dollars. billions. every year. billions of dollars. they contribute nothing. the welfare is like 80%. they can shift 88%. -- the welfare is like 88%. i don't want them in our country. that country is no good for a reason. the country stinks. we with them in our country. i can say that about other countries too. we don't want them. we have to rebuild our country. our country is at a tipping point. we are at a tipping point. i don't know if people mind me saying that but i'm saying it. we can go one way or the other. we are going to go the wrong way if we keep taking and garbage into our country. ilhan omar is garbage. her friends are garbage.

these are not people that work and say let's make this place great. these are people that do nothing but complain. i complain. -- they complain. from where they came from they have nothing. they came from paradise. this is in paradise. when they come from hell and they complain and do nothing but bitch, we don't them in our country. let them go back to where they came from and fix it. host: you can see the whole cabinet meeting if you're interested in watching the comments of the president and others during that event. debbie is in pennsylvania. hello. the idea if it is a big idea for -- a big deal for politicians to use profanity. caller: everyday life, i cannot take them using the f word is punctuation. as soon as i hear that i lose

respect for them. i can't hear anything else they are saying. i actually don't care to really then at that point. it shows me they have no vocabulary. they have no words to describe what they are trying to tell me. that is just the way i feel. nobody mentioned biden that he used the words too. obama would say that is just joe. that is how i feel. host: debbie in pennsylvania. dennis up next in texas. caller: hello. this is ernest from texas. thank you for taking my call. all i wanted to say is that i am raising five grandchildren and i have tried my best to keep -- of course they hear language but when trump came into office everything was ok'd.

it was ok to talk like that. why? because the president sets an example to these children of how to speak. besides the subjects and all that, besides all that. the language that trump is using against everybody else except his own is disgusting. they are thinking it is ok to talk like the president. let's put it that way. they asked me why do you not let us say those words and our president is saying those words to other people and insulting other people in a way that my children are not allowed to talk like that in my house. i hope they don't talk like that anywhere else and i hope they don't grow up talking like mr. trump. i will call him mr.. he is not my president. i did not vote for him. host: linda in tennessee.

"we expect our president and politicians to be statement, some when our children can look up to and admire. now they behave like gutter rats, "especially" this president." laura from facebook saying, "leaders should be able to speak without profanity, insults and just plain down rudeness. if you can't, you don't belong there. i makers like a sailor but i'm not trying to be a president and i absolutely don't want my president or any other governmental leaders to either. keep it professional or you have no business holding that position." betty in south carolina, if it is a big deal for politicians to use profanity and insults. caller: yes. trump doesn't say no more than the democrats.

they have called him everything but a human being. no, it is always donald trump, donald trump. cnn, that is all they do. that's all they do. it ain't just donald trump. it should be about the democrats. that is what should be a buyout. pete -- be about. i give him an a plus all the way out. host: what about the idea politicians to use profanity and insults? caller: no, they shouldn't. why should one do it -- the republicans and democrats do it. what is the difference? the republicans and the democrats doing it. they are doing the same thing. they stay on that man all the time.

chuck schumer is another one. nancy pelosi, all of them. max waters or whatever, they all say bad things about him all the time. that is all you hear. i hear more from democrats than i do republicans. host: that is betty in south carolina. it was from the fall where the former vice president and presidential candidate kamala harris was on a book tour, answering questions about the trump administration and specifically health and human services secretary robert f kennedy using profanity during that exchange. [video] >> when i see with these people i doing right now to end the war on cancer, to deny science and fire scientists, it is personal for me. it is personal for me.

i can't laugh at it because, like so many of you who have known people who suffer because of unknown diseases or cancers for which there are no cures or there is the beginning of but more work that needs to be done for the cure, what they are doing to push misinformation and lies at the highest level of government, it is criminal. people will die because of what they are doing. i can't laugh about that. i'm sorry. [beep] up. host: that event from this fall if you want to look it up. it's at c-span.org. access the video library and the you can hear the full comments of the former vice president amongst others. that's available to you at c-span.org. stephanie in virginia, you are

up next. caller: hi. thanks for the call. i am just going to say that i agree with most of the commenters. i really wish we could go back to where the the media does not emphasize all this rhetoric. i think that makes it worse. i think the cussing from the presidents and educated people cheapens that leadership. like others said, we are trying to teach our kids that words matter. decorum is important. i hope america taking it back to that -- can get back to that. i want to say that piece because this is on my heart. i want a real president back who focuses on what he is supposed to do and not all this broadway rhetoric to stir people up just to get elected.

host: why do you think it is wrong specifically to use this type of rhetoric? caller: i think they think you get votes. some people i guess it resonates. yeah, he is strong and this and that. the others try to play the game. we are like the audience and we are not really participating. i just want to vote like i used to. it was fun to do and now it is not anymore. someone said we don't know so much misinformation, nothing much to do about nothing except what we are interested in. it is like their little game and we are just people watching it happen. ugh. thank you for that is what i wanted to say. host: stephanie in virginia. randy joins us from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. i do believe the political

rhetoric should be used the way it is used. i will give a couple of examples on both sides. play that clip of the democratic rally in d.c. where that woman said i hope my two daughters and not listening. f trump, f trump. that was on the democrat side. trump was getting on a helicopter and he said it. as far as rhetoric and the way trump speaks to some reporters, they ask him gotcha questions. they don't ask questions about what the subject is that they were interviewing a dignitary or whatever. they are trying to get a gotcha question. that is why trump is on these reporters were asking stupid questions. i'm for it when they deserve it.

liquid cbs 2 when they changed the wording or on the january 6 deal -- look what cbs did when they changed the wording on the january 6 deal. trump is not putting up with it. trump is not putting up with it. he tells it like it is. i have for him 100%. he does get out of line sometimes, but, you know, i don't blame him for what he does. that is my point. host: randy there in wisconsin. you can continue the conversation by giving us a call on the idea of profanity and insults as part of rhetoric. do you think it is a big deal? (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zone. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. (202) 748-8003 if you want to text us if thoughts on the topic this morning. the associated press article i showed you add to this.

when it comes to the idean of courseness. "the question is whether this language will become increasingly mainstream. republicans who simply try to imitate trump -- the president's brash style did not always succeed with voters. democrats who turned a vulgarities risk appearing inauthentic if there were to forced. for some it is just a distraction. it is not necessary, says republican don bacon of nebraska, who is retiring next year after winning five elections in one of the most competitive house districts. "if that is what it takes to get your point across, you're not a good communicator."" that's from the associated press and the last couple of days. if you want to look it up online and read it for yourself. let's hear from lloyd in whitestone, virginia.

good morning. caller: good morning. i am 72 years old. talk is very important. look at the billions of dollars spent on comedians and the media and everything. presidents and people in leadership, it's important they speak -- locker room talk. everybody gets a chance to say what they want to say. get it out in the right way. it's all this negative talk, calling people names. we have to know this. [indiscernible] we have to realize this is 2025 supposedly. we should be more civilized. words are important to say. leadership should not be involved in this freedom of speech thing because it involves

too many people. it is being used too broadly. host: here's the headline i referenced when it comes to the associated press. "embracing profanity is one thing with political parties seem to agree on." if you want to read the comments from this morning. bob in san diego, good morning. caller: hi pedro. i wanted to just -- political rhetoric and all the stuff. i think the actions are more important. my parents are getting older, in their 80's. i am getting older. i scan my grandfather's records onto the computer, because they are not on the computer. i would scan his history so the

family would have something to look at. i am scanning his -- his military record. he was a prisoner of war. we are going through and i see all these envelopes. one was a car that said "geneva -- was a geneva convention card with his name on it that was laminated. sorry if i'm a little broken up. i started thinking, president trump is bombing people that are hanging on boats. there is no geneva convention anymore. host: political insults and profanity. what do you think specifically about that? caller: actions instead of political words. it is actions. there is not even a geneva convention anymore. i wonder what's going to happen

to our -- if we have prisoners of war. my grandfather was in a japanese camp for three years, from 1942 to 1945. host: got your point, bob. cj in mississippi, you are next up. cj in mississippi, hello? caller: how are you doing this morning? host: go ahead please. caller: it doesn't matter which side it is. as leaders you are supposed to be standing above everything else. you have kids out there listening to you. you are supposed to be leaders of the united states of america. using vulgarity and rhetoric it should not be allowed. i just can't understand leaders

today. they don't set a good example for people in america. it doesn't matter which side it's on. it should not be allowed. host: ok. cj in mississippi. jerome is in pennsylvania. caller: yes. my thing on profanity is when you have a person that is supposed to have moral values cussing, calling people names, disrespect, i was brought up with respect. we became a country that disrespects. we accept no morals. we accept a man who called everybody names. my mom would whip my behind. then we have people calling the president. i don't get that. host: are you saying it is

unacceptable amongst all presidents and political leaders? is it the current president that just stands out for you? caller: it is disrespectful for anybody. we were brought up to treat people with respect and talk to them with respect. america has become a country with no moral values. we have a man representing us with no moral values whatsoever. w havee people calling, president. no one on this planet respects america because of that man. host: jerome there. lynn in north carolina, you are next. caller: i'm pretty much the same with him. if you have a president that sits up and calls people names, your mall is the key to your soul. if a man can sit on tv and a

great another man because he was murdered in his house, what does that say about him? if he is that people inside -- evil inside and he attacks everybody else because he can't take it. we are listening to a president with the morals of an alley cat. that is all i have to say about that. it has never been this bad. i am 70 years old and i have never seen nothing like this. host: it was a recent conversation with you talk's governor spencer cox when he was talking about the eddy of civility and bring you back to political discourse. he did reference president trump's rhetoric. here is that exchange from earlier this month. [video] >> look, there are people that

admire him and what his bluntness and one that because they feel like the times call for it. in fairness to them, they think the time for polite dialogue is over. how do you respond to all of these varying factors? >> this is the thing that comes up. there are two things i want to say. i think it president trump were here now he would tell you that this is not his thing. he would be very honest about that. he was very honest about it at the celebration of charlie kirk's life. he and i have had this conversation. it was interesting after the press conference when i talked, shared so passionately how i felt, bringing our country together. he called me and thanked me and said i appreciate that you said that. i liked that part. he was asked afterwards, do you

agree with governor cox that we should practice nonviolence? he said yes, 100%. that did not get as much attention. i'm not trying to play down his divisive rhetoric at all. i'm not going to do that. i will say this. if we think that a president of the united states or a governor is going to change where we are right now, we are fooling ourselves. i truly believe -- i truly believe the people of our country are the ones who are going to have to change this. our elected officials are a reflection on us. they are a reflection on we the people. this idea that we feel it is ok to scream and interrupt now. we have given a pass to this boorish behavior for far too long.

this is what we get. if you want to change what is happening in washington, d.c., we the people have to decide this is not who we are. we have to demand better. [applause] there is an exhausted majority in this country. 70% of americans hate what is happening in politics right now. they are desperate for something different. yes, you can point at the president. i'm here to tell you that neither party is interested in addressing that market failure right now. host: remarks made earlier this month, available for viewing at our website, c-span.org. fill from west virginia, go ahead. -- philip. caller: i feel like we are discussing -- the discussion is diverted too much into curse words and curse words are bad.

the real rhetoric, the real talk that is corroding our system started years ago. democrats and the left calling everybody who disagrees with them a racist. well, 20 years ago, that was a serious charge. they just used it on everybody. it started this slide where we are now with not just people on the left calling trump hitler, but they transitioned to where they are calling voters -- attacking the voting public as being nazis and homophobes, all the way down the list. hillary's basket of deplorable's. they are attacking voters. not the politicians. the left is reveling in that. they think they are making points. nobody cares if tim walz says the f word. i have heard him say that

several times. he's just a small minded person. it doesn't create the hate and foment the hate the left and democrats have enshrined by calling everybody who disagrees with them nazi, white supremacist, white nationalist, islamophobia. e. they are demonizing other people. go to a video of an anti-rally and watch them scream at people with trump t-shirts. scream at them that they are nazis and murderers and terrible, horrible people. host: is it acceptable to you by the president himself or the use of that kind of rhetoric or use of insults? caller: i would rather he not do that.

i think he creates unnecessary controversy, just like the subject of this part of c-span. i think it is unnecessary. it is very different though. it is a very different thing when he calls a reporter or some official an idiot, or like tim walz a retarded. i think that is bad taste myself. but he is not calling the voters or labeling everyone who supports kamala harris as a fascist or nazi. everything on the left his how trump voters are fascists. host: philip in west virginia. david in louisiana. caller: good morning. it seems that the problem is that people take offense to certain words.

and so, you are the one who chooses to be offended or embarrassed or whatever, i think, but i do not have the education. i am embarrassed way more by some of the policies that they have proposed. some of the ideas and how that works. god bless you. host: rubin is next from philadelphia. hello. caller: can you hear me? host: i can. go ahead. caller: they need to separate vanity from insults. every once in a while people might spit out profanity by mistake, but the insults coming from the president of the united states are deployable, like hillary clinton said. on christmas day did he just get up and criticize everybody on the left with his truth social. when he first came down the escalator he was talking violence saying that if you see

anybody from the left out here, knock them out and some white guy knocked out a black guy before he was running for president and his first term. he said that jeremy dimon was born without the brains that god gave him in one of the other cnn reporters said you cannot talk to him like this. and the way he is talking to people and calling them garbage and sickening. and for anybody to sit there and tell me that they are naming the name of jesus and you support this, when the book of james said what grade of fire and little tongue can set forth. this guy is deplorable. and people know it. jd vance was the one that first called him american hilter, so stop blaming people on the left for calling you nazis. host: rick in los angeles. hello. caller: hello.

i agree with the next-to-last collar. it is not the man says but what he does. and drum produces. all of the callers did not vote for him. a lot of kids if they do not hear cussing from their parents they will hear it at school. they will hear it anyway. profanity is around us. you cannot get around it. host: so politician should not be held to a higher standard? caller: they should be held to a higher standard. but you had politician's eloquent like obama but they lied to get obama care. how affordable is the affordable care act now. they lied to us and sold our jobs to china and mexico, but they were eloquent. man is not perfect, he is human. but if his speech was perfect, he would be like a god because he gets things done.

he is bringing $18 trillion back to this country. none of the other presidents did that. they tried to lock him up for life. listen, we have to let out some steam, he is only human. host: one more call from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: well. caller: the rhetoric between the two parties is bad on both sides. but, the democrats use it a lot more than the republicans. and the way they use it, the democrats, is more harmful to the people of the united states and to the other political party than what the republicans say to the democrats or about the democrats. i am a republican. and i agree that it should not be set at all. like i said, the way they say it in the type of wording they use and all that is wrong. and democrats are taking it to

extremes. they are taking it way farther than the republicans ever had. that is all i have to say. host: claude in pennsylvania finishing off this block of calls taking a look at this topic thank you to all who are up -- who participated. we will continue the annual holiday authors week series with writers from across the political spectrum whose books touch on important political policies and issues. joining us as chris whipple to discuss his recent reporting on president trump's chief of staff and his book "uncharted: how trump beet biden, harris, and the odds and the wildest campaign in history." we will be right back. ♪ >> watch america's book club, c-span's bold new original series with the pulitzer prize winner stacy schiff, author of

biographies including ben franklin, samuel adams and cleopatra. she joins david rubenstein. >> writing a second book on franklin, you must admire him. but, you do admire him? >> i feel as if he is always admirable and so many ways, just the essential dna of america. his voice is the voice of america. >> watch america's book club, sundays at 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific only on c-span. >> past presidents, why are you doing this? >> this is a kangaroo court. >> friday c-span presents a rare moment of unity, he's fire -- ceasefire where the shouting stops and conversation begins. political playbook chief

correspondent dasha burns is the host, bringing two leaders from opposite sides into a dialogue. ceasefire on the network that does not take sides. fridays at 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern and pacific, only on c-span. >> get c-span wherever you are with c-span now, our free mobile video act that puts you at the -- app that puts you at the center of democracy live and on-demand. keep up with the latest events of life streams and floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. catch the latest episodes of washington journal, find scheduling information for the tv and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. the app is available on the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span, democracy unfiltered.

>> this year c-span brought amount -- millions of americans closer to the work of their government and in the heart of your democracy. as you consider a year end gift, your tax deductible support matters. c-span is a nonprofit with no government funding and/or independence is sustained with citizens like you who believe in open government. we are there for decisions and pivotal supreme court cases so every american can witness their democracy in action. your support keeps this unfiltered and independent access strong. please give today at c-span.org /donate. >> washington journal continues. host: we continue the holiday authors week with chris whipple. his most recent book "uncharted: how trump beet biden, harris, and the odds and the wildest campaign in history." thank you for coming on our program.

guest: thank you for having me. host: the book came out in april, and what have you learned about the reactions to the whole events of last year when it comes to the election and president trump winning? guest: well, we are seeing the results of what was obviously a pivotal election in the history of this country. and it was surely the wildest presidential campaign in modern history, the only one that compares his 1968 with lyndon johnson abdicating and two assassinations. in some ways, we are all reeling and recovering from that extraordinary election. and we are now almost a year into trump 2.0. and, as you know that is something i am writing about as well. host: you have been, and one of

the things that came out related to the book of sorts is that the democratic national committee decided not to publish their autopsy of why the election went the way it is. what do you think about the decision and what can you parallel from the book about how the dnc reacted? guest: look, i am not sure it is not earthshaking, the decision not to publish. you might recall the rnc's autopsy published back a few years ago that did not sit too well with a lot of people, and so anyway, i do not put a lot of stock in that. i think the lessons are we are still sorting them out. and i really think that fundamentally what happened in 2024 is that kamala harris had to be the change candidate in a change election as the sitting vice president of the united states. that is a tough hurdle to clear.

i think she did very well considering the time she had. certainly through the convention. i think she stalled coming out of the convention for reasons we can talk about. host: what do you think is the chief reason? guest: i think she reverted to her natural instinct which is caution. i think there was a timidity that set in, even as she left chicago with the wind in her sales. she retreated and failed famously to go on joe rogan's show and you can debate on whose fault that was. she fumbled that big question that was posed to her on "the view," if she was -- but asked if she would do anything differently from joe biden. that was a major misstep. at the end of the day. i think that campaign relied too

much on turning out the traditional democratic constituency. the big advantage of the trump campaign, which was led by susie, some of you may you -- somebody you might have heard of lately. they focus like a laser on traditionally non-or unmotivated voters. and turned them out. i think that was largely the difference. host: our guest is with us and if you want to ask him questions on a couple of different topics, when asked about the long-term effects of the last election, the topic of his book. you can do that and also his recent interview as he referenced from vanity fair. here is how you can ask your questions. 202-748-8001 for republicans, --. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.

that interview with vanity fair, why did she ultimately consents to give you that? guest: it was a series of interviews over almost a year, 11 interviews and all that i had with her. it was really extraordinary to me, surprising and remarkable that she would be as candid and freewheeling and unguarded as she was throughout those interviews. look, i have read all the speculation in the press about she talked to whipple because she was trying to send a signal that she is getting ready for the post trump era in her future, or she is trying to take jd nance down a notch and elevate marco rubio. i do not think it was as machiavellian. i think it is pretty simple. she is convinced that trump was maligned during his first term unfairly covered. she thought she would get a fair hearing from me and i think she

got it, despite whatever her feelings might be now. the other thing i think is that when you are in the west wing, you are really living in a bubble. exponentially more so in the trump white house, and in others. she is talking all day long to like-minded acolytes, who are all reading from the same playbook. and i think at a certain point, you lose track of reality, and you think that what you are saying makes sense in the real world. a lot of the stuff she said just sounds crazy in the real world. host: does that include your opinion on some of the characterization she made of her fellow workmates when she talked about the vice president and the idea about conspiracy theorists saying the president himself had an alcoholic's personality. what went through your mind but she was saying and how you

interpreted that? guest: i knew that she was being extraordinarily candid and speaking out of school and i knew it would make news, every word of it because as you know, susie wiles has an app -- has a reputation of being under the radar and not really being out there and rarely giving interviews or being photographed. those characterizations i thought were just honest, and colorful. what i am talking about when i say crazy stuff, i am talking about how she said out loud that trump's revenge and retribution tour was ongoing and i am paraphrasing and not quoting directly. but when i pressed her on the subject of letitia james, she said yes. that is retribution. it is almost a get out of jail free card for lachesis james --

letitia james' attorney and here's a chief of staff to the president of the united states saying clearly that it was all about revenge. and political retribution. that is the kind of thing that you might sit around saying to stephen miller, but not to a journalist who will report it to the world. host: when you set up the interviews, what were the ground rules? guest: we were on the record, and unless we explicitly agreed otherwise. again, it was extraordinary that she was on the record as much as she was. she very rarely asked to be off of it. she was very precise when she did go off the record. from the get go, this was on the record. i cannot tell you how extraordinary it is. i wrote a book about the biden white house and everybody was on deep background all the time eating that you could never quote them in less you came back and got approval for the quotations.

so i give susie wiles enormous credit for being as candid as she wasn't agreeing to those ground rules. and frankly, i give her credit for a number of things in that piece. it is 9500 words and there is plenty of context. and i tried to be as fair as i could be. host: what did you think about the white house's reaction once the peace came out? guest: not terribly surprising because i knew that they knew that a lot of the stuff that she had said in unguarded moments were a political problem. the candid assessments of jd vance, a guy who she said is aikins furious -- conspiracy theorist, calling russell vought a right reit -- right wing absolute zealot and saying the president had an alcoholic's personality, which trump confirmed and does not have a problem with.

she knew and the white house knew that they had a political earthquake on their hands. and they had to circle the wagons. so not terribly surprising. host: again this is chris whipple giving us his time and we showed you the front page of the "vanity fair" peace and the most recent book, "uncharted: how trump beet biden, harris, and the odds and the wildest campaign in history." he did mention his other book " the fight of his life: inside joe biden's white house." first call from michael in denver. independent line. good morning and go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. mr. whipple i want to say it is a real privilege to speak with you and thank you so much for writing the book. i had a comment and question this morning. something you touched on in the book that was interesting to me,

presidential campaigns have four major attention-getting events or moments. there is the declaration of candidacy, convention nomination speech, televised debates and vice presidential candidate selection. with two months remaining into the 2024 election, the september debate with trump and harris was widely considered a huge moment. i personally think that kamala harris was well prepared and had a compelling voice and won that debate easily. the question i wanted to ask you is which of these moments would you consider the most crucial for both candidates, and who do you think i's the most on them? guest: that is the great -- that is a great question and thank you for the close reading of the book. you are constantly looking for those moments that can change the direction of a race and the base is foremost among those.

and i think that you know, harris was widely considered to have won that debate, hands down on merits. and yet, i thought that trump's performance was underrated. at the end he kept stressing that, allah says -- kamala said that she would do this and that and why hasn't she done it? she has been there four years. why hasn't she done it? he kept repeating that. and i thought it was actually quite effective. even as he said you know some other pretty crazy stuff. immigrants eating dogs and cats and so forth. i thought that his performance was underrated. host: tony in new york. buffalo. republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you very much.

my humble opinion, i would like to hear it from you what you thought that what was the pivotal point where trump was brought over the top. i think the years and years of political correctness, people got tired of. they got tired of all of the nonsense. and he finally came out. and yes, it his rhetoric could be cleaned up. we need to stop all of the rhetoric from both sides. what do you feel that put trump over the top? guest: listen, good question. and i think you are right that he won the culture war for sure. and remember that transgender ad, which kamala harris really failed to effectively answer was

a factor in that. but, i really think that, fundamentally, the big problem for kamala harris is that there was just this massive anti-incumbent sentiment. not just in the u.s. but around the world. incumbents lost left and right since the pandemic. and so i think, again, she had to somehow portray herself as the change candidate, and a change election. that is tough. she did not do herself any favors on "the view" when she was as if she would do differently. if you read her memoir, i still do not think she gets it. that was an opportunity for her to create distance from biden and say we blew it on inflation and here is what i will do. she did not do that. host: you wrote the book saying "the vice president was

navigating a political minefield. the slightest misstep or any hint that she was plotting to replace the president could have been politically fatal. will harris was lying low her political operation was working behind-the-scenes." to what point do you think the political operation supporting her was help or hindrance? guest: it is a complicated answer. and you know, you could argue and i talked about her timidity and caution coming out of the convention. often it is the fault of consultants and handlers who try to make sure that the candidate does not make a mistake. but in this case i think it was her own innate caution. and i think that again, one of her big failures was not realizing that she had to create distance between herself and joe

biden. and when she talks about that debate. the appearance on the view, and she kept saying she felt compelled to be loyal to the president. hubert humphrey was loyal to lbj, but in late october of 1968, he broke with lbj on his conduct of the vietnam war, and there was a surge in which he almost caught richard nixon. we will never know what might have happened if kamala harris had simply said you know what, we need to do something about inflation. i disagree with joe about this. we will never know what the result might have been. host: chris whipple joining us for this conversation. george in virginia. independent line. you are next. caller: good morning. i read your book cover to cover. what i noticed the most in the book was that seem to want to

give the government -- the democrats more of a pass on things than the republicans. the problem with that is that the truth kept getting in the way. and i was just wondering, why that was? it was a good book and i did enjoy reading it. and i do think that when talking about kamala harris and the democrats, it was not kamala harris' fault that she necessarily lost because of herself. but more the fact that the democratic party did not do their job by saying to joe biden you should not run for a second term. guest: interesting, your interpretation, because frankly i thought i was critical of kamala harris. i gave her held for the mistakes i thought she made, including the one i have talked about at length when she appeared on the view and the failure to go on joe rogan and they should've

found a way to do that. she should have focused on getting traditionally unmotivated voters the way that susie wiles and the trump campaign dead. there is an interview with susie wiles in the epilogue of the book in which susie says she could not believe how bad kamala harris was as a candidate. so, i think that kamala harris might argue with you about the notion that i went easy on her. host: you even write in the book "when it comes to the president himself saying the truth that joe biden was too old to run for reelection must -- much less govern effectively. his advisers knew that and should have know it -- noted. but he refused to face that fact." guest: the reason i was writing another book when joe biden had that disastrous debate. and i was -- i immediately put

it aside and called my editor and said i think i need to do this one. not because i felt like i was uniquely qualified to write it, not because i was smarter, but because i had sources at the highest levels of the biden and trump campaigns, which i think the book reflects. that was a seminal moment, when joe biden dropped out of the race. that 11th hour abdication, which left kamala harris with too short a runway to really mount a successful campaign. and i think it was a tragedy for the democratic party. it was certainly something that will haunt the democratic party for some time to come. i mean, i do think this was scandalous. joe biden's failure from hubris or whatever, his failure to step aside earlier, and the failure

of his inner circle to recognize that he needed to get out of the way. host: i want to elaborate, what did you think that susie wiles did right? guest: one of the things she did right, her strategy, which she told me all about, in great detail. in which, by the way readers will be able to check out in my next book which is a history of presidential campaign managers. ", the kingmakers" watch for that. her genius seems to me was very simple. they focus like a laser on the unmotivated voters that usually do not get to the polls, but they knew that there was a lot trump voters among them. what they did was they rallied them. i think those voters made the difference in the swing states. and i think the harris campaign focused too much on the

traditional sort of democratic constituency. and they missed the boat. host: referencing that vanity fair article, she responded " you know clearly," and this is what you said "significant context of what much of what i and others were made of the team and the president was left out of the story and i assume this was to paint a chaotic and negative narrative about the president and our team." what do you think the characterization? guest: she is not talking about the campaign book but the vanity fair two part series that i wrote, 9500 words and that is just silly. you know, when a white house starts talking about cons text -- "context" or leaving the positive things out, you know you have done their job -- your job. if you really had a problem they would be talking about the substance. they failed to challenge a

single assertion or quotation in the 9500 word piece that i wrote about susie and -- susie wiles. i was scrupulously fair, that is my job as a journalist. that is why she spoke to me in the first place, because books like "the gatekeepers" and i praise republicans and democrats when they deserve that and criticize them when it is called for. and, my job as a journalist is not to judge but described. that is what i try to do in the vanity fair piece. host: as far as specifically to vanity fair, to what degree has she responded to you directly or you to her? guest: she has responded publicly. and her first response was to tell the new york times that she had never said any such thing about a quotation about elon musk.

the times called me and i played the tape. subsequently we have heard nothing, no challenges to any assertion or quotation. again, this rather feeble statement that somehow i was somehow out of context and i left out all of positive things. well if i think if anybody reads the piece you will see that is not true. host: this is "the gatekeepers", that is the book. the vanity fair piece is what we have been talking about, specifically an interview with susie wiles. and then his most recent book " uncharted: how trump beet biden, harris, and the odds and the wildest campaign in history." chris whipple joining us for this discussion. let us hear from maryland on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: yes.

there were a lot of blunders made. regardless, i do not feel like america was ready for a female president, especially a black one. have you seen that video where trump says he is in the oval office with the fifa president saying that if the 2024 election was not rigged he would not be president? have you seen that? guest: which? caller: the video of trump in the oval office with the fifa president saying that if the 2020 or election was not rigged, he would not be president? guest: i missed that. i am sorry to say. that is fascinating. and i am not sure what to make of that. on your first point about kamala harris, i could not agree with you more. i do think that clearly, misogyny played a part in this election. racism played a part.

that is the kind of thing that is so difficult, and almost impossible to quantify. i do not spend a lot of time writing about it in my book, " uncharted." i think you are absolutely right. you would have to be living under a rock not to acknowledge that of course that is a big factor in anybody's decision in the voting booth. host: how much did the biden team embrace the harris candidacy? guest: that is very interesting, because contrary to some of the reporting that has been out there, and a couple of other books, i know that joe biden really has a fondness for kamala harris, and personally told her do what you have to do. you can, if you need to distance yourself in some way or say something, go at it.

you need to win this election. there is other reporting that suggest that somehow the biden people told kamala harris and her team, do not you -- don't do it -- don't you dare create daylight between you and the president. that is untrue in my view. i know that joe biden's white house chief of staff told kamala harris' top advisers go for it. you need to do what you have to do. host: p.k. in las vegas, republican line. you are next. caller: good morning mr. whipple. being in nevada, where we are known for the fake electors and that which has been going on. and, i have a lolly -- a lot of knowledge pertaining to that. one of the things i want to ask you is that last year i was at a

memorial. and i met at the memorial one of the co-authors of projects 2025. the weekend before that particular memorial, another gentleman was on the morning show discussing project 2025. i hear word but he had to set -- i heard what he had to say and then i heard one of the writers talking about it and i said to him, you know that trump is denying all of that. and he says he has to. and because it was coming up in all of the campaign things. so he was denying it. now that he is in and now that we are a year going into our second year with him being the president, and knowing some of the things that i do, did susie wiles and you discuss why he is denying his involvement?

because he does want to stay in as president? guest: i did ask her directly about that. i said will he run for a third term. and she as you pointed out denied it. emphatically. she said but boy is he having fun with it. in other words, he just enjoys the sport. apparently he considers it a sport, trolling the rest of us about his intention and keeping everybody guessing and keeping his opponents off balance. that is what susie wiles what have you believe. she says there is no wiggle room in the 22nd amendment, which of course restricts a president to two terms. look, i think you can read the piece. and you can take her at her word or not. i think that any intelligent

reader will probably be skeptical, dubious about some of the things that she says. you cannot fault her for not speaking out. in this case. host: numerous interviews for the piece, but did you ever get the sense that she would pull out of the whole thing altogether? or was she willingly engaging? guest: not for a moment. she was all in all the way, until she was not after the peas came out. and then she realized that they had a political firestorm that they had to put out. and, no. she was quite willing throughout. host: mark in massachusetts. independent line. hello. caller: good morning and thank you. i think -- i do not really think that kamala harris really wanted to be president. and, obviously biden fumbled.

if there was a true primary i think trump would have won. it goes back to the whole border when he made her head of the border and even during her whole vice presidency, she never kind of helped him out. it did not seem like she was helping joe out that much. you know? it was a perfect storm for susie wiles and the republicans. they just set everything. like, the same with the garbage truck and working at mcdonald's. they call them garbage and they called them on it. and i think he is really the best huckster since pt barnum. guest: this is the first time i've heard some of the suggest that kamala harris did not want to be president. i think she did. and again, i think she ran a good campaign through the convention and then not so much afterwards.

you mentioned the border, and i think it is important to point out that something she failed to point out really during the campaign which is that she was not the border czar or in charge of the border for joe biden. she was in charge of the so-called northern triangle. that means the central american countries. she was dealing with the long-term causes of immigration. she was not the border czar, but trump hung that around her neck like an anvil and she never successfully got out from under it. and that is just worth pointing out. host: this is a viewer from richmond, virginia and asks this saying "do you see kamala harris as someone who has leadership skills necessary for a president? what did she stand for? " focus on those two things? guest: i think that she appears to be trying to keep her options open for 2028, and i think she

should do herself and everyone else a favor by simply bowing out. i do not think she has demonstrated the leadership or the insight into her own failed campaign. as you know, i give her credit for a lot of things that she did well, and i think she was up against it. had to be a change candidate and could not be. having said that, i do not think that she has a realistic or viable candidate. she had her shot. and democrats never get a bite at the apple when it comes to the presidential nominees. the last democrat who lost and then was renominated was adlai stevenson. host: can you elaborate on that idea as far as she does not seem to learn from the campaign to apply to another campaign? i am praise -- paraphrasing you but can you elaborate that? guest: i was struck reading her

memoir about the description of the infamous appearance on "the view" if she would have asked if she would do anything difference from biden and she if she was up -- if she was prepared with an answer for that, she had an opportunity to create daylight between herself and biden and she could have chosen the issue, economy, inflation, god's or whatever. inflation would have been the way to go. she failed. in her memoir she still seems to underestimate the importance of that moment. she still does not seem to get it. but all of her advisors understood in the moment, which was that was a big blunder. host: juanita in ohio. democrats line. caller: good morning. mr. whipple, you would not remember 53 years ago, but i do.

i have not read your books. i am not sure i want to and these are the reasons why. they -- they taught us bullet -- particularly with political campaigns to look at the nuances. and i was struck by two or three things that i saw online, over podcasts and for news people. i will look at it when i get better. the book and you do not seem to acknowledged some facts about the united states. i do not think we were ready for a black woman president period. i agree with the sister who called in earlier. guest: i agreed with her as well. caller: may i finish, please? the other thing that i really want to clear up for the maga

folks and the people who are not as old as i am, harry truman said the buck stops here and it stops with me. i was born under his administration. he made it clear as -- that the president makes the decision. i do not kind of czar he said he was but he makes the final decisions. host: thank you. if you want to follow-up. guest: i guess i would just suggest that never judge a book by its cover and never judge a book by the snippets that you see online. i hope you pick it up and read it. host: from james in virginia. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. what i am confused by is that why are we paying so much attention to the loser? and then i hear she could not

have won because she has a black lady, they did not have a primary. it seems when the democrats lose , especially to trump, it is a million reasons on why they lost instead of a better team won. what i like about trump, i do not agree with everything he does, but i like the fact that he gets things done. did you imagine if roosevelt tried to build the hoover dam today? or any of the big projects that we had done back in the 30's or 50's that we could try to do today? you have to talk to congress. congress does not get anything done. congress is technically in charge of d.c., and they just allowed it to happen. trump comes in and does something and he is the bad guy. he got rid of over 200,000 government employees and nothing said.

obama deported 3 million immigrants, nothing said. trump comes in thanks does the exact same thing and he is horrible. guest: well, i mean trump is a doer, and he does stuff. in addition to all the stuff he mentioned he pardon 1500 insurrectionists and rioters who were involved in january 6 deported hundreds of people without due process. some who actually deserve to be deported but most of people who was not. he has prosecuted political enemies. he has verbally abused women and minorities. he has certainly changed the behavior of presidents as we know them. he does stuff and it is a question of do you approve of what he is doing. host: what questions do you think either of the democratic party itself or the dnc has to

ask itself before approaching the next election considering what they learned the last time around? guest: i would say fundamentally they have to figure out what is the message, and it has to be more than trump is a bad guy. it has to be more than democracy is at stake, even if it is. so, that is the key thing. and i do not think and my guess is it is going to be someone who is an outsider in the sense that it is not going to be a creature of the democratic establishment. you know, i think the country is fed up with the establishment on both sides. republican and democrat. the message is what they have to figure out. host: to the last part do you think that the new york city mayor's race demonstrates that an outsider, different than the usual political stock? guest: absolutely. and if you were at -- if you were to ask susie wiles about

mamdani, she will tell you if -- she will tell you that he is " scary good." whether you like him or not he has a message that resonates and he is a once in a generation communicator. and it is not a coincidence that mamdani and aoc and bernie sanders are filling venues with enthusiastic supporters. they are resonating, because they have a clear message. so, whoever the nominee is in 2028 will be somebody who is genuine. who can convey a message clearly. it does not have to be aoc or mamdani's message. do you see anyone emerging? guest: i will not handicap names

and i was talking to an old friend of mine, a first rate white house chief under bill clinton and defense secretary and cia director. and he thinks it needs to be a centrist. a kind of modern version of bill clinton. host: john. and when you heard that, what was your response? was that for me? for you, what was that response? guest: i thought it was fascinating that he thinks that that kind of message can resonate in 2028. we will see. host: john in ohio. independent line. hello. caller: hello. i just had to call after i heard the guy misrepresenting black women in america. i heard the two black women saying that i cannot -- we cannot vote for a black woman.

my best man was black 50 years ago. that does not matter. thing is i would've voted for condoleezza rice because she was a real person. harris was a big phony and it was terrible. biden lost his mind even before he was a vice president. he convinced obama that gays should be able to get married because obama was totally civil union. and that is why trump one, because people went -- won because people went nuts. we have gays, lesbians and transsexuals in the government. they did not make a good decision in their life choices but now you want them to make decisions for me. transportation secretary buttigieg was the worst decision ever. biden was out of his mind and harris did not deserve a shot. black women can be great. host: john in ohio. any response? guest: you will believe that.

and, as i said before, the culture wars were significant. in my view, the bigger factor was that people wanted a change candidate. host: derek is in texas. on the democrat line. hello. caller: yes. i have a few things about trump. every time someone calls he is meeting on women. and he ran against qualified men , and people will look at them harder. he is a very nasty person when he is talking about women. and he is not qualified to be a president. i am not even worried about him

-- anything that he had. it is just that thing in georgia that he was trying to get votes. the man is a cheater. so, let us take the elephant out of the room and just be straight up and say this man cheats on everything that he does. he cheats on taxes. he cheats on everything. and he does not treat the united states the way that they are supposed to be treated. he just lies. host: ok. that is derek in texas. you can respond. guest: let me address the point he made about trump's language and verbal abuse of women. i brought this up with susie wiles and i was fascinated by her response. i asked her what was going on with that, in particular the comment he made in november to a woman from bloomberg who said quiet piggy, memorably.

i asked her what she thought of that. and she said look, he is a counter puncher. and increasingly these days, the people doing the punching are women. i found that kind of remarkable. host: the first year of the trump administration, almost beyond us, what do you think faces him in the next three years. guest: look, i think the real test, and this is really what my vanity piece is all about. i trace the first 11 months of trump 2.0, and susie wiles' performance as white house chief of staff. she has done a lot of things effectively. trump 2.0 is different from 1.0 is different because of her because she runs a smooth operation in the white house.

the ultimate test of any white house chief of staff is his or her ability to walk into the oval office, close the door and tell the president what he does not want to hear. early on, susie wiles seems to want you to believe that she was doing that. she would tap the brakes on trying to talk the president out of blanket pardon for all of the january 6 rioters, or tariffs. trying to get him to give up revenge and retribution after 90 days, which clearly failed. and so, i think that as we go into the second year of the trump white house, it is more important than ever and the stakes could not be higher. this is somebody who is still pursuing political prosecutions of his enemies. this is someone who is, contrary to what the administration is saying, is blowing up boats in

the caribbean without clear evidence, simply to get maduro out of power in venezuela. the list goes on and on. this is somebody who is untethered to any kind of democratic guardrails or constitutional safeguards. and it is the white house chief's job among others to tell him hard truths. and that is a fundamental test as we go into the next three years susie wiles in the country. host: in the course of the interview as you get to know the person, why do you think susie wiles gets the president's ear, the bluntness or other things? guest: she has a magic with trump and this is fascinating for those who have not read the piece, and i suggest you go to vanityfair.com and read about her history with trump. also going all the way back to

her childhood. her father was the famous sportscaster. he was an alcoholic. and susie wiles earned a phd in difficult men. she learned that may be a version of the serenity prayer, you hope to change the things you can but you cannot change everything. it is a fascinating history that she has. part of their bond was the fact that she could -- the first time they met, she sat there and they talked about football games and about 1970's new york, the whole copacabana era. they are creatures of that bygone era. they click and get along. i do not think she is going anywhere. i think she still has a bond with trump, for better or worse. host: james in florida on the

line for republicans. hello. caller: good morning. i think i am up to about 11 excuses you gave to kamala harris, except for the one that is obvious which is she was a terrible candidate. she was one of the first ones to drop out during the primary. she did not get a single vote. i do not how you can say it was everybody else's fault but kamala harris. she is a terrible candidate and has been since she was running for president. guest: respectfully that is exactly what i wrote the book. i do not know if you've had a chance to read it. i quote susie wiles making the case that we could not believe how bad she was. i document it, i do not know how many cases i documented of susie wiles and kamala harris making tactical blunders including the appearance on "the view."

and countless other ways or failures. so, the notion that i am making excuses, respectfully, i just think it is silly. host: finish your thought. caller: ok. i started counting them, so you have given her excuses. you wear your bias on your sleeve very well. the fact is, this whole thing, i cannot believe how quick you turned around to trump, but i thought it was about the democrats and what happened during the election. you are saying you excuse them for not releasing their autopsy at the same time. and i think their autopsy just says what i just told you. kamala harris was a horrible candidate and has no ideas for anything that is positive. host: if he wants to follow up on that. guest: i think i pretty much answered the question. host: jay in d.c., democrats

line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a quick question to the guest. what was the chief reelection manager for the biden reelection campaign? i mean i can easily recall that james was the number one strategist for clinton and david was obama's chief political strategist. well, who was biden's chief election strategist. thank you very much. guest: her name was jen o'malley dillon. she has a highly respected and very smart -- is a highly respected and very smart operative that worked on his 2020 campaign, and was really the chief strategist campaign manager in 2024. david bluff came in and worked with her on that campaign. i would have to say that she was

first among equals. host: so, though focused on your next book looks at campaign managers. what got you fascinated about that? guest: i wrote a book about white house chief of staff's called "the gatekeepers," which traced the job from 1968 to the present. i thought it would be fascinating to look at that history this time through the eyes of the presidential campaign managers. it is anit is an incredible casf characters. it is going to be, i think, a rollicking history. also, i hope we will have some insights along the way into the evolution of presidential campaigns from one of the wildest in 1968 to another incredible campaign in 2024.

host: of all of the ones you are going to profile, is there an underlying thread that makes these people successful? guest: yeah. i think to some extent it depends on a really strong presidential campaigns manager or advisor like james carville for example in the case of the clinton. it can really make a fundamental difference. in that campaign in 1992, just to give an example, at that point, the democrats essentially were defeatist. they wondered if they would ever win a presidential election again. they had been shellacked time after time after time. carville came in and he was just a believer. boy, was that contagious. of course, they had a fantastic candidate in the form of bill clinton. i am telling you, campaign managers can make a difference.

susie wiles is in that category, too. donald trump, in my view, would not be president if not for susie wiles. for those who say i have been hard on susie wiles, remember that. host: let's hear from new jersey. this is dave on the independent line. caller: thank you. i want to say nothing account for donald trump's personality more than leaders in new york city like my father-in-law who was director of field services for the landmarks preservation commission. he knew donald trump. he knew the dolans. he worked with kennedy after penn station was destroyed by the dolans he worked with kennedy to preserve grand central station from what happened to penn station. but he and my mother-in-law were part of the intellectuals of manhattan. they were appalled by this guy

from queens, by his money. and it is that rejection by the glitterati and literati of manhattan, it is that rejection, and the attack on historic sites is an attack on men like my father-in-law who would literally not let trump buy him a cup of coffee. he spent the whole night on the circle line with trump bobbing around manhattan. host: we are running out of time. what is the question for our guest? caller: does your guest agree this kind of eternal temper tantrum of trump and attacks on our most important sites really results from him being disdained by the intellectual elite of manhattan? guest: i think i would agree with you. no question about it. part of trump's drive, part of his need to be president was

fueled by resentment toward the elites who, as you point out, would never quite accept him in new york city. host: one more call. this will be from kevin in texas, republican line. last call for our guest, go ahead. caller: yes, mr. whipple, i promise i will read your book if i ever find a free online version of it. guest: thanks. caller: because i have a critical thinker, i love to hear both sides. but it is obvious you are a democrat progressive and apologist for the democrats. you pretty much admitted that when you said -- guest: actually, i admit no such thing. i wonder what it is i have said that makes you think that. caller: i will tell you exactly what you said. you said when people show how unbiased and one-cited your per

trail of things are, you know you did your job -- your portrayal of things are, you know you did your job. guest: quite the contrary. what i was saying is when the white house fails to challenge a single assertion or quotation in a 9500-word article, you know you are doing something right. i do not see that as having anything to do with bias. host: we are almost out of time. go ahead and finish a thought or question. caller: here is my question. this is what i want you to think about. you do not want to give reasons why the democrats failed in the election pray here is the bottom line, their policy, you will say the culture war blah blah. you say she would have won if she addressed inflation.

guest: sorry, i never said she would have won. i said she missed an opportunity to try to distance herself. in fact, you are agreeing with my point which is that she needed to convince people that she had a program to bring inflation down. you could argue that trump has not done it either. she might have done better had she distanced herself from biden on the subject of inflation, for example. i do not see that you and i are really disagreeing about much of anything. host: the most recent work from our guest come from vanity fair, that interview with susie wiles which you can find online. the most recent book of our guest, "uncharted." chris whipple joining us as part of c-span's "washington journal" holiday authors week. thank you for doing so. happy holidays to you. guest: always great to be with you. happy holidays. host: we will finish the program with the question we started with. when it comes to the use of

political rhetoric, particularly insults, is it a big deal? you can call in on the time zone lines. you can text us, too. politicians using profanity and insults, is it a big deal? we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> on this episode of booknotes+ with our host brian lamb. >> this week's interview is from 1997. our guest was the former minister of the memorial church. his father was from cape verde he islands and his mother was in african american. he identified himself as gay but

says he remained celibate. he passed away in 2011 at age 69. during his lifetime, he received over 40 honorary degrees. he was a registered republican most of his life and offered prayer at the inaugurations of presidents reagan and george h.w. bush. however, in august of 2006, he changed his registration to the democratic party. >> we revisit the interview with peter gomes in his book. booknotes+ with host brian lamb is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the c-span now app. >> why are you doing this? this is outrageous! >> this is a kangaroo court! >> fridays, c-span presents a rare moment of unity where the shouting stops and the conversation begins. dasha burns is host of

"ceasefire," bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue on the network that does not take sides, fridays at 7:00 and 10:00 eastern and pacific, only on c-span. >> this year, c-span brought millions of americans closer to the work of their government into the heart of our democracy. as you consider a year-end gift, your tax-deductible support truly matters. c-span is a nonprofit with no government funding. our independence is sustained by citizens like you who believe in open government. we are there for major legislation, executive decisions, and pivotal supreme court cases so every american can witness their democracy in action. your support keeps this unfiltered, independent access strong. please give today at c-span.org/donate. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the idea of profanity and

insults as part of political rhetoric was part of a recent opinion piece by the former governor of indiana, mitch daniels, two is president emeritus of purdue university. in that piece he wrote this about profanity. he said profanity is suddenly mainstream.

that is available online. it was an opinion piece in the washington post. "public norms have become worked. is this damage permanent?" here is the headline. some centrist democrats sharpen tone, saying mark kelly was used to play a supporting role, the retired astronaut and husband of representative gabby giffords. he played the role of levelheaded centrist. lately, kelly is breaking character as he embraces a public, and at times, profanity-laced-viewed with president trump. after the retired navy captain filmed a video with other democratic veterans, telling

military members to disobey orders. do you think it is a big deal? if you want to send us a text on this, 202-748-8003. let's start with roseanne in wisconsin, go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. i'm very sorry i missed mr. whipple. it is still the continuation of divide and conquer when it comes to the republican party. it is let's blame everything on race or sexual preference or anything else and then throw up these horrible things they are saying because it is like a firestorm they are trying to

start inviting rather than r address the bread-and-butter issues of the country. we are all one as a country. let's not divide ourselves and play a blame game as to what color or sexual preference you are. this is why this is happening to our country. no. the thing is, we have no laws, no rules to prevent people from gouging other people. wall street is doing great right now because they can. i mean, the things that are going down with no taxation on the uber rich and the poor people are paying for it, it is insane. we have got to stop this. host: ok. let's go to kyle in hawaii. you are next. caller: oh low-high, pedro, happy new year, merry christmas. here is to a great 2026. thank you.

when politicians start talking like this, it is not just president trump. the other politicians, when they start talking like this, it is getting beyond, it is getting chaotic. maybe politicians when they talk like this, it is reflective of us, but i don't think so. i think they need to have a higher standard. and speaks well. it does not look good. something needs to be done. we are getting to a point in politics and government where if politicians are talking like that, it continues to be done, i know we always say that, but we are inching towards chaos and disorder. it is sad. that is the first step. free speech, yes, but you don't have to talk like that. that is going back to our golden rule. host: kyle in hawaii.

let's go to joe in new jersey. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. it is interesting. we just had christmas, the birth of christ. what do we think when we say christ would use this rhetoric? it is sinful. people are denigrating their lives. politicians do not care. we have to have respect. that is my final comment. a blessed new year, brother joe, knights of columbus. host: cabin in new york, staten island, hello. caller: good morning. thanks for having me on. i am also a knights of columbus. it is sad to say our whole society, radio, movie, television, all of that has demoralized the public a lot. we used to have rated x, pg, g,

which was pretty well enforced in the 1970's and 1980's. now, it seems to be gone. i think that is one of the biggest downfalls we have. host: what you think about politicians using coarse language or insults as part of rhetoric? caller: they are part of society. they are human beings. they are following the status quo. that is my point on the ratings system. donald trump is a christian, supports christianity. i definitely support christianity. it is appalling to sit down and see both democrats and republicans use profanity to get their points across. it is sad. host: the associated press in recent days taking a look at the

idea of profanity and its use when it comes to politics. a section says there is a risk that if such language becomes overused, its utility as a way to shock and connect with audiences could be adults. jerry seinfeld has talked about this problem, noting he used swearwords in his early routines but dropped them as his career progressed because he felt profanity yielded only cheap laughs. the white house spokesperson said the president does not care about being politically correct, he cares about making america great again. the american people love how authentic, transparent, and effective the president is. the associated press going on to say the words that generated the most controversy are often less centered in traditional profanity than slurs. the associated press is where you can find that story.

in recent days, the president himself making news when it comes to insults and the use of them. this was aboard air force one last month. many of you referencing it earlier this morning. this is about comments of jeffrey epstein, particularly comments directed to a reporter. here it is. [video clip] >> quiet, quiet, piggy! >> [indiscernible] on venezuela. host: that was aboard air force one. shortly after that during a back-and-forth with reporters at the white house press briefing, kelly leavitt spoke about that exchange --talk about that exchange. here is what karoline leavitt had to say at the time. >> the president is very frank and honest with everyone in this room preview have all seen it yourself. you have all screens that yourselves. it is one of the many reasons the american people reelected

this private, because of his frankness. he calls out fake news when he sees it. he gets frustrated with reporters when you live about him and spread fake news about him and his administration. he also is the most transparent president in history and he gives all of you unprecedented access. you are in the oval office almost every day asking the president questions. i think the president being frank, open, and honest to your faces rather than hiding behind your backs is a lot more respectful than what you saw in the last administration where you had a president who lied to your face and did not speak to you for weeks and hid up tod upstairs and did not take your questions. i think everyone should appreciate the frankness you get from president trump. host: take advantage of the video library to see everything over the years when it comes to

a lot of different topics. this is from joseph in florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i went independent. i will give a couple of real-life situations in business with donald trump in his early years when he ran his hotels. he would tell his payable people not to pay vendors because they will just go away. that is not a christian. secondly, i live in florida, we have a golf group. i would say he is a majority owner. they were maga or moderate republicans. what happened with rob reiner has tipped the scales with that golf crew. they usually don't talk politics but that is a topic of

conversation. those floridians have had it. if that is any indication what is going on in the country, this guy is not going to last. he is going to lose reelection in november. i am not saying democrats are a godsend, but you are dealing with the man that is not a human being. host: ok, got the point. let's go to ingrid in colorado. political rhetoric when it comes to insults and profanity, what do you think? caller: absolutely unacceptable. it was never heard of until trump came around. he started it. he started the divide and conquer thing. he wanted us to be against each other. he got what he wanted. he used a lot of profanity. i think it is absolutely uncalled for. a man in his position should not speak like that to people, anybody, does not matter. host: if you go to the

associated press article, it also highlights other things others have said over the years when it comes to the use of profanity, democrats and republicans alike. just to give you an example, just to show you, they highlighted president barack obama when joe biden used the 'f ' word as part of an expletive toward him. the remark overheard on live microphones at a 2010 ceremony. talked about kamala harris which we talked about earlier. post-campaign, talking about these things. by the democrat or republican, if you want to call in and give your thoughts on profanity when it comes to political rhetoric and whether you think it has a place, you can call or text us. let's hear from karen in new

jersey. hi. caller: good morning, pedro. every time i see you on the screen, i say, "ola, pedro." i just want to say, is anyone else crying? is anyone else crying besides me about everything that is happening? and i'm sorry to say this, god forgive me, the only way that this guy is going to be stopped is -- death. host: we are going to stop you there. unacceptable on both accounts speaking about the president that way. beverly, go ahead. caller: good morning, happy holiday to whatever holiday you support and celebrate. as far as the language, yes, it

is absolutely atrocious. a lot of people are using it. but a lot of people are addressing in a manner that to me is not acceptable. however, the people that are on tv the most man let's face it, the president, that is who most people are hearing. a lot of people that talk this way, people do not listen to or here. i fortunately have c-span, this is the best tv. i have it on as much as i can. but the president is on all channels a lot. that is where they hear the language that should not be spoken the most. if you are a religious individual, why are you using that language? when someone says to me

so-and-so is religious but the things that come out of their mouth are far from someone that is a religious person that cares about people, my worry is the children. children are on a lot of media. they hear a lot of things that unfortunately we, as older people, never heard when we were young. please, please, knock off that language. it is just not becoming to anyone to speak the way a lot of people are speaking. host: beverly in connecticut. let's hear from rick in florida. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning, my friend. just as the article said, i think part of what we like about trump is he says what is on his mind. i think many of us are tired of being politically correct. we like politicians like trump and ron desantis who are honest with you.

if you like it, you like it. if you don't, you don't. you know, facts over feelings. as my mom used to say, you just have to toughen up, buttercup, get over yourself. i want to hear politicians that are truthful, that say what is on their mind. if they do not like something, they do not like something. if they think you are a pig, they think you are a pig. people need to get over the poor baby crying and deal with the reality. host: i was going to ask, is there a way to be direct without resorting to profanity or insults? caller: sure. you can be direct without resorting. we need to stop being a whining, crying little society and toughen up. you know? that is what we like about trump. we like the fact that he is honest. sometimes people don't like it. too bad, so sad. he got the popular vote.

people need to get over there whiny self. host: sherry next. hello, sherry. is it a big deal? caller: i don't think it is a big deal. it had been going on a long time. it has only picked up speed in recent years. for me, the major turning point where the gloves came off was when nancy pelosi at the speech set a terrible visual on that for how behavior in the united states should be. i thought she should have been reprimanded for that. it just seems like words hurt people more on the left than the right. i think it is because, you know, sticks and stones. it is just words. it is not a big deal. like rick said in florida, put on your big boy pants and go on with it and toughen up a little , america. host: gina in mississippi, hi

there. caller: good morning. i would like to say the whole country, the whole society, has gone down the way people dress, the way people act. the way everything has just gone down so much that it is terrible. it is just embarrassing. also, i to point out that donald trump, i do not agree with his cursing, but he is only responding to the way he has been treated for the last 10 years by the democrats. and for the four years he was not in there and biden was in, a n ugly word was hardly ever aired about him. anybody who pays close attention to it like i do, you see what happened. frankly, i do not know how

donald trump has withstood all of the harassment, the lies told on him by the media, the insinuation. it is just horrible. it has drug this country down. now the democrats want to blame the republicans and donald trump. they are just being hypocritical. they need to take a good long look in the mirror. all these people now who think they are so holy, you better look in the mirror because the lord is watching and he knows who is lying and who is not. host: ok. that is gina in mississippi. more from mitch daniels, the peace combined online at the wall street journal. you goes on to say where norms are not criminally ratcheted into their work at state, a pendulum will still need a push.

host: that for peace by mitch daniels in the washington post -- that full piece by mitch daniels in the washington post

if you want to read more. let's hear from ellen in nevada. hello, your next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm calling to say from was a democrat once. i think calling people garbage and sleepy is not the way most of our parents brought us up. the wise one is quiet, shut up, and we don't use foul language and we don't call names. i don't think he is making america great by always bashing on democrats or republicans. i think republicans and democrats formed our country and we should all get along with each other. i am an old grandma and that is the way i am. i babysit the children. i do not allow foul language in our home. i think foul language is not very mature. it is like the teenager stuff. you know?

and that is all i want to say. i love our country. i appreciate your program. and i appreciate that the constitution beheld up and that we have the freedom of speech. and thank you. host: ellen in carson city. let's hear from tony in north carolina. caller: good morning. everybody should know what they voted for. they voted for this kind of foul language, this rhetoric. they like that, so they are not going to say anything negative about that. he is walking around like a beast doing things, like a beast. i thank god i did not give him the mark for president. people, if you voted for it, this is what you get. host: as far as it's used generally by democrats or republicans, is it appropriate? is it a big deal? caller: you just showed about

the hot mike with biden, i am sure a lot of adults use profanity where there is no one for themselves, but to do it on a platform such as that, i believe it is trying to become a normal thing. a lot of people think when you say profanity, not cursing because cursing means you are damning somebody, but just using profanity, i think the vocabulary is very short. i can say words like a sailor, no offense to sailors. people should not say it. if somebody do say something like that on a platform like this, you better hurry up and shut them off. why you not do that to trump? we know it is out of order. it is not normal for an adult to do that when children are watching you. host: ok.

let's go to kathleen. kathleen joins us from maryland. caller: good morning. i just wanted to interject that when i was growing up, i was taught you are using profanity it is a sign of low intellect and lack of communication skills. i was taught if you cannot express yourself without insult or profanity, then you need to wait and figure out your thoughts more clearly so that you can articulate them without that. i think using profanity and insults is a sign of low intellect, a lack of communication skills. and so, i think there is no place for it because i would prefer that my political leaders have the intellect and communication skills to articulate ideas and thoughts clearly and appropriately. host: kathleen in maryland joining us about this idea of profanity and insults as part of political rhetoric. you can join in the conversation

on the phone lines if you wish. you can post on our social media sites. you can send us texts too if you want. let's hear from alfonso in arizona. hello. caller: k, pedro, how you doing? host: fine, thanks. caller: what i am hearing from people calling and is a lot of pro clutching. a lot of them have lived very sheltered lives. what the president has gone through, what his family has gone through, what his businesses have gone through, those who are hearing his " rhetoric," they need to understand this man, his family, his businesses have been attacked. that is american to me, that is how i see it. like the lady who called and said the f-bomb and death to

trump, i hope she is being reported. if that does not happen, that is the only person i heard got shut off today, somebody that had that in them to do that. i do not feel the language he is using at times is meant for anybody but the individuals he is speaking of. that is how i see it. host: ok. alfonso in goodyear, arizona, giving his thoughts. someone who gave his thoughts earlier this month, governor josh shapiro, at the washington national cathedral event. he talked about the idea of stability and its place in american politics. here are some of that exchange from earlier this month. [video clip] >> leaders have a responsibility to act with moral clarity and call it out. here is what we cannot allow. for leaders that do not act with moral clarity, remain silent about certain violence or give a

pass to others, because that is insidious, that is gasoline on a fire. and that leads to greater violence. i'm going to say it. and i realize it may not be popular with some in this room. when you are a governor, you are a president of the united states, you are looked to for that moral clarity. we have a president of the united states right now that fails that test on a daily basis. [applause] it should not be hard to see the minnesota speaker of the house gunned down and mourn her loss. it should not be hard to follow the beautiful eulogy of erika kirk with an "amen" instead of saying, "i can't do that, i hate my enemies," as the president did.

we have a crisis in this country that requires all of us to do better. what are we to ask of citizens if their leaders are not meeting that standard? i understand that there are ways to disagree forcefully on policy , but i think it is critically important that at the same time we leave no room for anyone to allow for violence and fail to universally condemn it. that is what we need in this country. i believe it starts at the top. host: in washington state, we will hear from angel. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. it has been a while. i think we ultimately need more empathy for each other and fellow brothers and sisters. we went with sandbox poo flin ging with profanity.

that is not getting us anywhere. we are punching down instead of trying to rise above. i think we need to lift each other more in this world. this is a world that needs more love and compassion. there are children dying of cancer, for heaven's sakes. this is politics where people are saying such horrible, ridiculous things like little children. these are the people that are supposed to be the examples for our children, for crying out loud. we need more filters. we need more self-filters. just think about something you say right before you say it instead of just flinging your craziness. it is embarrassing. when people at the top use profanity, it is embarrassing. this is our example? that is all i have to say, pedro. i hope you have a wonderful, happy new year. host: this is from tony in michigan. hello. caller: hello, pedro. happy new year to you. i think this rhetoric is terrible. it has gotten out of hand by

leaps and bounds, especially since i was little kid. i was raised that cursing was a bad thing and i better not do it because i would be punished. now, it is like second nature. and then, i hear the people calling him, "you voted for trump." but you do not have to like what he is saying because it is terrible. kids are listening! it is sad. i don't think people really get it. when donald trump is out of office and the democrats are back in power, you are going to feel some kind of way. this is not good for politics for this is bad politics. at some point time, we all should be able to say that wrong

is wrong. we should be able to call balls and strikes. have a great day. host: let's go to carol. good morning. caller: good morning. it is good to see you, pedro. in, trump's language -- in, trump's language and disparagement of people he does not like just reflects what he really thinks of himself. thank you. host: that is carol in california. if you are just joining us, we are talking about politicians using insults and profanity as part of the rhetoric. if you want to give us your thoughts, you can call us or

text. several of you posting on our facebook site. you can do that, too. and on x. debbie is next from florida. caller: good morning. happy holiday. it is not democrat or republican. it is common decency. if you go back to mccain and he told that woman he is not a muslim and he is a decent human being, you go back and you look at that and you read what trump wrote on christmas, radical scum .

and then you have him use the word, i hate to say the word, it is not a curse, [indiscernible] [indiscernible] host: are you there? let's go to bob in tennessee. caller: yes. the republicans are bringing morals out of the open for the democrats to come around and start being a little more moral. thank god trump brought that out of them. i will explain. give me a second. these people, they listen to rap music and they allow their children to listen to it. there is more profanity coming out of that than donald trump ever said in his life. the most evil things, pedophile doctors mutilating children and murdering babies! come on now, democrats.

host: ok. caller: i think the barroom, locker room talk is tiring. i think people need to have a little more class. as far as the last caller, two wrongs do not make a right. you can always change the channel as they say. i think it is tiring. get some class. thanks. host: we did some polling looking at the statements of the president. this is from the hill saying it was nearly 2/3 of americans believing the social media posts and subsequent comments about the killing of actor-director rob reiner and his wife were inappropriate. the poll showed the posts by trump and other politicians and asked what they thought about

it. americans were not fans. 72% of americans say the president's post is not appropriate. just 17% say it is appropriate. 55% of a public and scald the post inappropriate along with 90% of -- 55% of republicans said the post was inappropriate along with 90% of democrats. [video clip] >> a number of republicans have denounced your post after the murder of rob reiner. you stand by that post? >> he was a drainage person as far as trump was concerned -- he was age arranged -- a deranged person as far as trump was concerned. he was one of the people behind the russia hoax. he hurt himself careerwise. he became a deranged

person. i thought he was very bad for our country. host: charles in washington, d.c., your next. caller: donald trump is giving people permission as the leader of the country to bring out their lower self. what did they do to barack obama ? they lied on him, they threaten his family. did he lower his standards or rise his standards? we need to evolve as human beings to know that we are all interconnected. if we look at history from the romans all the way up, people have been doing the same thing over and over again, hurting

each other and repeating the cycle. as human beings, we need to evolve past the lowest aspect of who we are and evolve as human beings. that is what we come here for. if you have no training, if you are not socialized to a different level of consciousness and understanding, you just imitate what society does. donald trump is a bad representation for young people to imitate or emulate. that is my comment. host: trump's in d.c. this is jeudy -- charles in the d.c. this is judy. caller: i cannot believe we are talking about this rhetoric on both sides when there are many other issues that are very important. i think the rhetoric is just beside itself instead of looking

at things like $9 billion taken out of our country illegally and looking at also the constitution . in the last administration, it was balked upon by opening up the borders and letting everybody in. it is amazing the news media does not really look at that when they are using our laws against us and not paying attention to us. people say some of the most polarizing things that can ever be spewed and they enjoy it. why don't we get back to what we are supposed to be doing in this country? they should be working for us and not themselves. host: ok, judy in arkansas.

earlier this year, they put together the use of profanity by various presidents. "the trump effect" is how they characterized it. president trump described israel and iran this week as having fought so long that they did not know what they were doing. adding under the current president, mr. trump's remarks have mostly been shrugged off. obama and mitt romney, with u.s. news saying, let me be clear, of course presidents swear, just not with the frequency of trump's public outbursts. president obama quipped kids would vote for him over romney. in a 2015 appearance, obama even

endorsed swearing as a form of stress relief. you have to make fun of a lot of that. that is when cursing is really valuable. it goes on. if you want to read more for yourself, it is a brief history of presidential profanity from u.s. news. walter is in ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning. a lot of great comments about violent rhetoric. certainly [indiscernible] bad. profanity has its place. how about a little respect for the office of president? we have all sorts of politicians that have zero respect for the office of president. they call him nazi. they call him names. they shot him.

80 million people needed a fighter. we needed somebody that would speak for us. that is what this guy does, he speaks for us. the other side gets offended when he says these things. a previous caller mentioned all the great things he did. he shut down the border. president autopen left the border wide open. the economy is getting ready to take off of the big beautiful bill. he is bringing peace around the world. this guy speaks for 80 million americans. keep it up, keep america first. host: everett in north carolina, you are next. caller: speaking about the both sides angle, just makes it easier for the republicans to give them a scapegoat. even with the charlie kirk murder, they went after hbcu's that had nothing to do with it. when they talk about islamic terrorism, it must have started

in the 1960's because they even burned crosses in people's yards. that rhetoric is a lie. it seems he is always trying to get a monument. he might treat other people different from others but we are all american. it is just ridiculous. it is just a game. we say both sides, but we are not the ones doing it. charlie kirk was murdered by somebody that would have been his own camp. within black people get blamed for it. i will stop right there. host: let's hear from jeffrey in mississippi. hello? caller: yes. i would like to say donald trump holds the largest speaker in the united states, in the world, you should respect the office he has

been nominated for, that he has been elected for. it is not for us to talk any kind of way just because we are powerful. it is because people are listening to us. if we do not give respect and show respect to other people so they can see we are decent human beings, then this country is going to keep on going down because trump is not going to stop doing the things he is doing. we need to get together and pray that donald trump would stop doing the things he is doing and start being a better president. host: ok. and offering her assessment of the trump administration in its first year, former vice president kamala harris on her book tour talking not only about the president himself but the health and human services robert f. kennedy, jr.

this assessment from earlier. [video clip] >> when i see what these people are doing right now to end the war on cancer, to deny science and fire scientists, it is personal for me. it is personal for me. [applause] and i cannot laugh at it because, like so many of you who have known people who suffer because of unknown diseases or cancers for which there are no cures or there is the beginning out but more work that needs to be done for the cure, what they are doing to push misinformation and lies at the highest levels of government, it is criminal. and people will die because of what they are doing. i cannot laugh about that. i am sorry. >> [bleeped]

host: that's here from paul in texas. hello. caller: i want to say about the profanity, we should have a noun and a verb. i think it's appropriate to use an adverb to accentuate the verb with profanity. . host: ok. j.l. is in utah, hello. caller: if you use a swearword in a sentence, it just makes your sentence a little longer. it does not really add to it. if you use insults or call somebody a name when trying to make an argument, your argument is weak, not to mention your character and intelligence is

somewhat lacking as well. we all say what is on our mind. sometimes it is stupid. sometimes it hurts. yeah, it would be best if we did not. i enjoy this country no matter who is the president and i am grateful for it. god bless us. thanks, pedro. host: we showed you that piece about the democrat centrists saying they will take on the establishment. it profiled mark kelly and others. it says centrist politicians are excited to be evenhanded, staid , and boring. they are the ones that bridge extremes. there increasingly deciding to dig in their heels and fight. they also do not want to cede control over to the party agenda or centrists. the strategy comes with risks.

it can appear inauthentic to voters who play into the hands of the president. it can also turn off independent or moderate voters. some say it is more style than substance. that is from the wall street journal if you want to read that. in georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i have to say i missed out a lot of c-span. since i retired, i discovered it and have been watching it quite a lot. this whole scenario going on now, people need to realize this is history repeating itself. donald trump has created his own downfall. the bible even describes him as being a wicked, evil man who will advance from bad to worse.

and all those following him are going to go down with him. i think right now what he is doing is trying to build up some sort of defense for himself so when it does hit the fan, he will have a way out, just like hitler did. it is a reality that hitler used the country of argentina as a place of refuge. look at the money trump has been pouring into argentina. he is planning his escape route right now just like hitler did. host: ok, let's go to lisa in georgia. caller: yes, hi. i would like to say that the profanity, the rhetoric we are hearing, and a political environment, it starts from the top.

kickstarts from donald trump. everybody had four years of donald trump. they knew what donald trump is. they knew him, they knew the rhetoric. now we are repeating it all over again. i would like to say that the caller that called in a few calls back, when he said people every time donald trump does something heinous, it is both sides. it is not both sides. democrats need to wake up. host: when it comes to the use of profanity or rhetoric itself, is it appropriate to you? is it a big deal? caller: no, it is not appropriate. nobody can go to work and speak like that. you would be fired. no ceo of the company you work for speaks like that. you would not like that. why would people except that

from the president? why would people except that from any leaders? i would say the messaging of the democratic party was so bad a lot of them came out using profanity, highly intelligent now. you want a lawyer standing way down the ground with donald trump. host: don in georgia, go ahead. caller: i want to save the profanity is terrible but the line is more har -- lying is more harm than the profanity. this is a man with zero class. every word out of his mouth is a lie. you have republicans calling, they are all convinced that somebody said they just shot him. we all know it is deranged young people with guns shooting around here. it is the arrangement. -- derangement. host: why is the profanity not

as bad as the lying? caller: he said i can grab women's genitals. that is terrible for us. i am a grown man. as long as the children do not hear it. we know he is a sick man. people believe his lies. he says there is no russia hoax. the first page of the mueller investigation says the russians helped donald trump and harm to hillary clinton! host: we have to leave it there. thank you all for participating this morning. anot